Thursday 18 February 2021 Gemma Green Chesney 1576 Burnt Yards Rd Errowanbang NSW 2792 OBJECTION AND SUBMISSION to CADIA VALLEY OPERATIONS MOD 14 – INCREASED PROCESSING RATE Application number - MP06_0295-Mod-14 I OBJECT unequivocally to Cadia Valley Operations (CVO) – Newcrest Modification 14 – increased processing rate. Further objections are noted throughout this submission. I live at 2136 on the address listed above, and also own 2135 and 2146 on Figure 1-2a in the 01. Modification Report. Below is a specific list of objections to this major project. 1. Notification & Consultation – CVO and DPIE. 2. Dust Issues 3. Air Quality 4. Proposal to lift the NTSF wall by 40m 5. Water Resources 6. Intergenerational Concerns 1. Notification & Consultation Having objected to many submissions before including previous Modifications for CVO & Regis Resources we are unsure why notification had not been received from DPIE of this Exhibition period beginning on January 21 this year? There was no email notification nor letter of notification at all. We call in to question the timing of this Exhibition Period during the School Summer Holiday season and Australia Day weekend during this time. A major project such as this, with over a thousand pages 14 days in not adequate time for research and follow-up consultation with CVO and other experts. Our feeling is that time has not been on the wider community’s side with such a capacious document. Regarding recent correspondence from CVO, between December 2020 and Feb 1 I have received no less than 16 emails from Cadia Staff – namely Jane Chung, Lindsey Tilburg & Matt Armstrong. An email was received pertaining to the Modification 14 Public Notice dated December 18 from Lindsey
29
Embed
OBJECTION AND SUBMISSION to CADIA VALLEY OPERATIONS …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Thursday 18 February 2021
Gemma Green
Chesney
1576 Burnt Yards Rd
Errowanbang NSW 2792
OBJECTION AND SUBMISSION to CADIA VALLEY OPERATIONS MOD 14 –
INCREASED PROCESSING RATE
Application number - MP06_0295-Mod-14
I OBJECT unequivocally to Cadia Valley Operations (CVO) – Newcrest Modification 14 – increased
processing rate. Further objections are noted throughout this submission.
I live at 2136 on the address listed above, and also own 2135 and 2146 on Figure 1-2a in the 01.
Modification Report.
Below is a specific list of objections to this major project.
1. Notification & Consultation – CVO and DPIE.
2. Dust Issues
3. Air Quality
4. Proposal to lift the NTSF wall by 40m
5. Water Resources
6. Intergenerational Concerns
1. Notification & Consultation
Having objected to many submissions before including previous Modifications for CVO & Regis
Resources we are unsure why notification had not been received from DPIE of this Exhibition period
beginning on January 21 this year? There was no email notification nor letter of notification at all. We
call in to question the timing of this Exhibition Period during the School Summer Holiday season and
Australia Day weekend during this time. A major project such as this, with over a thousand pages 14
days in not adequate time for research and follow-up consultation with CVO and other experts. Our
feeling is that time has not been on the wider community’s side with such a capacious document.
Regarding recent correspondence from CVO, between December 2020 and Feb 1 I have received no
less than 16 emails from Cadia Staff – namely Jane Chung, Lindsey Tilburg & Matt Armstrong. An
email was received pertaining to the Modification 14 Public Notice dated December 18 from Lindsey
Tilburg– however no date at the time had been set for the Exhibition Period. When the exhibition
period was announced to CVO on Jan 11, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE INFORMING
THE 280 CADIA PROPERTY OWNERS OF THIS EXHIBITION PERIOD. Relying on DPIE
to ensure communique, this evidently has not worked and having spoken directly to at least 30
landowners 2 received the letter from DPIE one letter was received 27 Jan and the other Feb 5 –
DURING the exhibition period! This document is an enormous undertaking for those not working in
the sphere of Mining. And, I call into question Cadia Newcrest’s circuitous behaviour over many years,
whilst endeavouring to be friends with the community. My family, having lived in the
Errowanbang/Burnt Yards area for the past 99 years, are passionate agricultural and community
advocates willing to speak up on agricultural, environmental and community matters.
2. Dust Issues & Breaches.
I agree and adopt generally John Gerathy’s comments from his submission on Dust from the NTSF
and STSF surfaces at Cadia.
‘Complaints by Cadia Residents to the EPA, record, with photographs and videos supplied, serious
dust events since mid 2018 emanating from the NTSF and STSF surfaces which events have not ceased
despite attempts by Cadia with aerial and panther spraying/ mulching of both dams! Refer to the
scheduled correspondence referred to above in particularly in relation to dust from the NTSF and
STSF.
Cadia failed for nearly two years, after the March 2018 NTSF slump (bankment collapse) to apply
sufficient works or funds to control this dust. Following constant complaint and pressure from Cadia
Residents Cadia in April 2020 started to apply proper resources to try and control silica dust emissions
from the NTSF and STSF and report monthly to Residents.
Despite Cadia’s efforts as described at great length in these monthly reports dust is still regularly
blanketing the community and Cadia continually treats major dust events just as a matter of recording.
The gravity of their breaches is sought to be lost in their reports’ works details.’ John Gerathy
Submission dated 18.02.2021
Our home and livelihood as Graziers of grass-fed beef and lamb lies to the east south east of Cadia
Newcrest mining area. Further below are pages of photos ranging from March 2018 until as recently
as Feb 12 2021 of dust breaches. For us, as Graziers no-one from Cadia, or any experts called into
support can answer our ongoing question of what happens when this dust and small levels of particulate
matter are ingested by ruminant livestock and then this enters the food chain? A question I continue to
ask and proactively address, having done so for the better part of 2 ½ years. It is now standard practice
for me to text Cadia staff – namely Matt Armstrong photos and video, as well as notifying him of our
next call, to the EPA. I have made in excess of 6 calls to the EPA. For the record the EPA have never
visited us onsite and have only made contact twice with regards to incidents on 6 March & 26 April
2020.
The visual evidence below speaks for itself. Remembering, that both tailings dams have a combined
surface area of approx. 700Ha or 1730 acres (or 1308.3 football fields!), this is the area that dust has
billowed off during the past 3 years. Each one of these dates also corresponds with EPA notification
and emailing of photos/videos.
7 August 2019
6 September 2019
4 October 2019
26 Feb 2020
23 March 2020
22 April 2020
26 April 2020
This dust event is by far the worst to date and spewed dust off 700ha like a giant gently boiling
cauldron, cascading a fog due east, south east, south and at times to the north. I never wish to
experience this level of dust and particulate matter again. It was truly a horrendous day. This event
occurred 25 months after the dam wall collapse. I make no apology for the volume of photos shared
here. It is incredibly important that my family are heard at this level – the visual evidence here is highly
damning and equated to our knowledge, in a fine by the EPA to CVO to the value of $15,000 – this is
utterly nonsensical and offensive to those who have been proactive in their community efforts to call
CVO & the EPA to action! This PIN was issued by the EPA on 31 July for 3 events dated from 5
March 2020.
Facing east up our driveway 1576 Burnt Yards Rd
Facing south to Cheesmans Mount
Facing to the north east from Burnt Yards Rd our house is in between the first and second steel post
on fence line.
Dust blowing for hours over pristine basalt grazing landscapes
26 January 2021
12 February 2021
18 February 2020
SUBMISSION
I request the DPI&E in assessing this Mod 14 Application call for and consider all records of the
EPA and Cadia/Newcrest dealing with dust complaints since March 2018.
3. Air Quality
I agree and adopt generally Mike & Frances Retallick’s significant research on air quality and
particulate matter within landscapes surrounding CVO, this is quoted as below. To me, this is highly
obvious given the atrocious dust visuals shared in many pages of photographs over the last 20 months
in the previous section. The concern is of course to human health, flora and fauna health, as well as
livestock health as this enters the wider food chain into supermarkets and butcheries across the eastern
seaboard.
‘For several years there has been a high level of community concern in regard to the long term risks
to health resulting from the air borne pollution generated by CVO activities.
The currently identified ore reserve is 2900 dry tonnes, at a production rate of 32 Mtpa the life of the
mine is in excess of 80 years. Therefore, many residents exposure to dust will be lifelong, there will be
a measurable impact upon their morbidity, particularly for vulnerable age groups such as infants and
the elderly.
CVO’s current air quality criteria (Appendix F Table 3-1) is determined in effect by PA 06-0295 and
is based upon air quality standards in place at the time of the original approval 30 years ago. These
standards did not consider fine particles which are more dangerous and travel further. This air quality
standard is now obsolete and less onerous than standards expected by the World Health Organisation
and the current NSW EPA impact assessment criteria. The current NSW EPA Impact Assessment
Criteria are discussed in Appendix F Table 3.3.
CVO barely complies with the current air quality standards and definitely will not comply, even at the
current production rate, with the planned 2025 NSW EPA requirements of PM2.5 annualised at 7 g/m3
and over 24 hours at 20 g/m3.’
Submission
a) That Cadia’s Air Quality Criteria be updated to reflect the current EPA guidelines and be
kept up to date;
b) Cadia’s production be limited to comply with prescribed air quality standards and
c) Given Cadia’s current dust events in breach of SSDA Condition 17 no increase in annual
ore processing rate be approved.
4. Proposal to lift the NTSF wall by 40m
The prospect of embankment extension on the NTSF our understanding is this is not needed, nor
required for the currently approved life of the mine to 31 July 2031. There are some levels of confusion
as to what the actual steepness of the bank may be in a variety of Cadia Newsletter reports. The
steepness ranges from 3:1 to 2.5:1 to 2:1 – which is actually correct?
Since the slump of the dam wall in March of 2018 with a length of approximately 213m from a
simple thinking point of view I fail to understand how this can be repaired and add 40-44m onto this
in approximately 11 staged lifts? Safety is a key concern here for individuals as well as the environment
in the event of further potential slumps and how this may potentially impact the Belubula, Lachlan and
further down Darling Rivers. When is enough enough?
The visual impact and prospect of this will mean that many landowners will lose the entirety of their
view of Mt Canobolas. Over the past 15 years with Modification changes and allowances the NTSF
and STSF have become a dominant eyesore in the valley and area.
I truly hold no confidence, that there has been adequate consultation with the community and indeed
the Central Tablelands Region by CVO. In a very last minute and brief meeting at the Panuara Tennis
Courts on 4 February 2021 with staff from CVO present, the question was asked had this level of repair
been completed on a tailings dam somewhere in the world and then placed a 40-44m lift in stages on
it safely and successfully? I’ve had no follow-up from CVO on this question.
SUBMISSION
a) That no approval be given to uplift the NTSF embankment by 40M
b) That no approval be given to any uplift of the NTSF save for a few metres to create
a dam to hold water and completely suppress dust emanating from its surface- (this
dam could be used to augment Cadia’s water supply).
c) That no approval be given to uplift the NTSF embankment unless and until Cadia
has applied for and had approved an SSDA Application to extend the ore output and
life of the mine.
5. Water Resources
Water as a resource in Australia is treasured by many, especially those in sectors where it is utilised
within business. The requested increase of 10% water increase, in line with the increase of processing
from 32 to 35 Mtpa, 176Ml/day or 176,000,000L/day of water is difficult to get one’s head around.
Where is this addition water to come from? And this again, circles back to the request of independent
water reporting on a monthly basis, of WHERE CVO actually draws down and utilises its water each
month.
I adopt and agree generally to Mike & Frances Retallick’s summation in their submission.
‘The proposed modification to 35Mtpa increases the water requirements for the CVO site. It is
envisaged that this requirement will be met by efficiencies of the PTSF.
Commissioning of the NTSF and STSF will put more demands on the amount of water required due to
evaporation and seepage / leakage. The last few years have been marked by water shortages for all
members of the community. Shortage of water is currently a major constraint in development of further
ore reserves in our region, (proposed McPhillamys mine near Blayney). In the interests of the
environment and broader community a fair and sustainable level of water sharing needs to be
established. We believe that this level is probably that required for 30 Mtpa (i.e., less than the current
approved rate of production). The purpose of setting production levels is to ensure that the business
operates within sustainable and responsible parameters, rather than limited resources being stretched
to meet a random short term economic goal driven by executive compensation and short term
shareholder returns.
Purchasing Belubula River water entitlements downstream and extracting upstream has negative
effects on the health of the river in our district.’
There are many environment agencies and concerned community minded citizens, who are also
concerned of where will all this extra water come from and importantly how will it potentially effect
aquifers and water tables throughout the Orange, Panuara, Errowanbang and surrounding village areas.